The present invention relates generally to the field of devices, and methods derived therefrom, used to deliver a fluid from a reservoir to a distribution apparatus. More particularly to such a device that is capable of programmable delivery of a predetermined fluid volume directly from an off-the-shelf container, with the fluid volume containing a predetermined concentration in solution, suspension, or mixture. More particularly, the programmable concentration function aided by use of RFID (radio frequency identification) tag data control for delivery of an insecticide, pesticide, or repellent to an area or volume.
In a household or commercial installation of the spray or liquid delivery system, the consumer or technician can remove an empty cartridge of the present invention that had been purchased off-the-shelf by disengaging the integral snap-lock coupling and replace it with a full cartridge or one previously used by but not emptied. The cartridge contains the fluid mixture and an RFID tag identifying the chemical contents and volume. The installed spray system would have the mating coupling attached to the chemical delivery portion of the system which contains an RFID interrogator or reader connected to a programmable data controller. The controller through the interrogator determines the contents and volume of the connected cartridge, and engages the process equipment of the apparatus to meter the fluid withdrawn according to preprogrammed parameters for distribution or spraying. Thus, with the programmed controller reading the RFID data, minimal or no operator input is required and exposure to the chemical in the cartridge is kept to a minimum by utilizing a snap-and-seal coupling. The traditional fluid delivery system for insect repellent, insecticide or pesticide requires the operator to open, measure, and dilute concentrated chemicals. In contrast, the present invention does not require that the operator open the cartridge nor does the operator have to measure or dilute the contents by hand. The cartridge of the present invention is a self-contained sealed unit with a means of electronically identifying the contents and volume. The system of the present invention provides identification of the cartridge contents, resulting in programmed mixing and delivery. All the operator has to do is change the cartridge. An additional feature is that the apparatus will also write data, such as remaining volume, to the cartridge RFID tag. Therefore the operator may change cartridges based upon environmental conditions without wasting a partial cartridge. The partial cartridge may be refitted at any time and the apparatus will be able to determine the content and volume. The operator does not have to do any programming based upon the chemical content of the cartridge. The system identifies the insecticide, pesticide, or repellent and is preprogrammed to spray volume by any preset schedule. The term pesticide herein is utilized to also include insecticide, insect repellent, and any other insect-effecting agents.
Programmable fluid delivery systems have been in use for many years to provide reliable and repeatable fluid delivery to an area with a minimum of hands-on operator control. A common example is the repetitive task of watering and/or fertilizing a lawn to maintain its health and attractiveness. To maximize the effectiveness and minimize the cost of lawn watering, a known amount of water is sprinkled on the lawn over a defined period of time, such as one inch per hour. Initially, this procedure could have been accomplished by pulling a water filled tank across the lawn with water emanating from an attached sprinkling apparatus, such as a fixed horizontal pipe with spaced holes. The adaptation of a flexible hose and sprinkler head to deliver water over a wide area reduced the time necessary to water the lawn, but required constant operator involvement to monitor the application and move the hose and sprinkler around the lawn. A programmable timer placed between the water supply and the hose meant that the time factor could be preset, but the operator still had to move the sprinkler head around the area from time to time. Further improvements utilized traveling lawn sprinklers, irrigation booms, and then underground tubing systems to deliver water through in-ground pop-up spray heads, with the volume controlled by a programmable timer and the area of application controllable through zone application.
To allow more remote operation, U.S. Pat. No. 5,333,785 (1994) to Dodds et al., disclosed a wireless control system for operating irrigation valves for different water supply zones. Further, irrigation systems have developed even more sophisticated remote control systems. To further define the optimum amount of water for an application, Sieminski in U.S. Pat. No. 6,823,239 (2004) developed a programmable irrigation controller that monitored various factors and responded to commands from direct operator input, or through a remote wireless or Internet carrier. Such remote control and data monitoring significantly improve the ability to deliver highly specific amounts of water and nutrients to optimize growth and return on investment.
With the advent of dry powdered lawn fertilizer, the lawn was fertilized by hand-broadcasting the powder about the lawn area. The various machines were adapted to spread the powder uniformly. With the popularity and fitting of houses with exterior hose bibs, the convenience of using a water hose and sprinkler head for the lawn increased. Thereafter, liquid fertilizer concentrate was made available in a container that could be attached to a water hose and the lawn could be watered and fertilized at the same time. During operation with the water running, the concentrate was removed and mixed with the water for delivery onto the lawn by a venturi effect in the mixing adapter. However, this mixing was imprecise and frequently used up the concentrate at such a rapid rate that the cost of application was too great. Consequently, the utilization of an existing in-ground watering system such as described above to disperse fertilizer at the same time is preferred. The advantages include that the fertilizer can be supplied as a concentrate, mixed to a precalculated solution inline or in a reservoir, and delivered at a preset time within a predetermined area or zone. Insecticide and pesticide application systems adapted similar distribution controls for household and commercial use.
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,889,881 (1975) to Cunningham et al., a novel liquid distribution apparatus and method for intermittent dispersal of atomized solutions such as insecticides was described for use within a defined atmosphere, such as a livestock barn. '881 does not describe or claim use of the apparatus in an open area. The invention utilized (1) a closed conduit loop that may be varied in length and placement according to the area to be fogged, (2) a pump to maintain the conduit under constant positive pressure for intermittent dispersion of atomized insecticide in the area to be controlled, (3) atomizing nozzles that only opened above a certain pressure thereby, allowing the system to be constantly pressurized and deliver an instantaneous atomized spray, (4) a variable timer to allow intermittent fogging to reduce cost by reducing the amount of solution used per unit of time, and (5) a reservoir within which the solution is mixed, stored, and returned from the loop. It is stated that the spray from previous insecticide systems settled quickly, thus requiring constant spraying and use of a large amount of insecticide. The advantage of this invention was the ability to provide an atomized mist in an enclosed space (a ‘predetermined area’ stated in Claim 1) at intermittent times and as such, the fine mist would remain airborne for an extended period of time. Thus, the longer the insecticide was airborne, the more effective it was in reducing insect populations in a horse or cattle barn. The disadvantages include the need to locate or place a large reservoir container, such as a 55 gallon drum, requiring insecticide solution to be periodically mixed from concentrate by the operator, and thereby repeatedly exposing the operator to the fumes or liquid from concentrated insecticides. Additionally, the large reservoir must be filled by the operator with water, and the invention was not designed and does not claim to work in an unenclosed area, such as on the outside perimeter of a livestock barn. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 6,047,495 (2000) to Matsumura et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 6,199,770 (2001) to King disclose pesticide or insecticide spraying from an air compressor pressurized piping system within an enclosed space, like a henhouse, attic, or crawlspace.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,742,641 (1988) to Cretti discloses an insecticide or pesticide delivery system comprising a conduit assembly, pump, and reservoir. The liquid delivery also occurs in an enclosed confined space, such as shown inside a wall, but uses pesticide directly from a commercially available concentrate in a container, eliminating the need for dilution and repetitive mixing by an individual. Although the bottle is substantially empty when replaced, the operator must first disconnect and handle the wet supply tube, open a new bottle, reinsert the supply tube, and then close the connection. These operations may expose the individual to concentrated chemical solutions by contact or spillage. In addition, the operator must identify and purchase the correct pesticide because the system has no safety control regarding identification of the liquid, and thus the system will operate pumping any fluid. U.S. Pat. No. 5,007,197 (1991) to Barbett discloses another confined space pesticide delivery system fitted under a housing slab foundation for control of termites, whereas Scott in U.S. Pat. No. 5,660,330 (1997) describes an automated pesticide application through a soaker hose buried around a house perimeter. Takoaka in U.S. Pat. No. 5,394,642 (1995) described a conduit system for retrofitting an existing structure at the eaves or in-ground to deliver pesticide by drip or sprinkle.
However, systems developed for closed area spraying or application are not necessarily effective in the open air. Weather conditions, ground conditions, vegetation, and geographical location are some additional factors that must be taken into consideration when designing an effective open-air eradication program. Thus, different systems have been developed to address these factors. Initial devices developed for open-air spraying included hand pumped sprayers, and more modern engine powered sprayers mounted on wagons, tractors, trucks, and airplanes. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,655,130 (1972) to Patrick discloses the use of a hydraulic pump, powered by a tractor power take-off, to deliver pressurized pesticide to powered blower fans. The premixed, diluted pesticide was provided in a large tank, and all directional, velocity and flow control was the hands-on responsibility of the operator.
Currently, frequent use of open-air spraying includes farms, livestock operations, orchards, and mosquito and pest control programs, spraying oil or water based pesticides. Excessive chemical use and fog drifting into inhabited areas prompted adoption of governmental and industry environmental and safety controls. To minimize these concerns, the spraying apparatus and chemicals used had to be adapted for better and more effective control. Such an operation requires minimizing fog drift due to the proximity of inhabitants, and maximizing chemical effectiveness by spraying the correct direction, concentration, and particle size. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,050,629 (1977) to Query et al, a portable fogging apparatus sampled wind velocity using an anemometer and then adjusted the spraying. However, there were more variables than wind speed to consider and advances in control systems were later adapted to modify these systems. U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,669,105 (2003) and 6,926,211 (2005) to Bryan, disclosed the use of an electronic monitoring system to control the spraying. Data on conditions such as wind speed and direction, humidity levels, ground temperature, vehicle velocity, and spray particle composition and size are input into a control system. The system uses programmable controls to read and respond to these conditions, and spray particle size, in real-time, to vary the spraying parameters and thereby, optimize the effectiveness and cost of the operation. But these systems utilize large holding tanks in which a concentrate is poured and mixed with a diluent, such as oil or water, for spraying.
Addressing the need for static systems to spray at intervals around dwellings, Pearce in U.S. Pat. No. 3,926,369 (1975) developed an apparatus and method of spraying an insecticide fog based upon wind direction and velocity to meter the output. More recent developments in the art include increased programmable control in fixed spraying systems and use of more environmentally sound pesticides to increase safety of occupants and operators of the spraying systems. Further improvements with programmable control of pumps and valves have reduced the need for large barrels of spray solution in favor of withdrawing a metered amount of pesticide concentrate from a container and combining it with water or oil diluent in a small reservoir, or simply in-line mixing, just before dispensing to the spray apparatus.
U.S. Pat No. 6,302,161 (2001) to Heller et al., discloses an apparatus and process for dispensing a concentrated water-dilutable insecticide formulation from a container having an inlet port and an outlet port. The concentrated contents of the container must be kept mixed by a fluid recirculation loop, resulting in the need for the inlet and outlet ports on the container. The concentrate is then withdrawn at a predetermined rate by a pump and injected into a water stream, which then flows to a reservoir tank for distribution or spraying. Such an apparatus must be constructed with the extra equipment to support a recirculation loop, and this recirculation loop must be maintained at an increasing cost. The concentrate container must be constructed with two openings instead of one, increasing the cost of the container and doubling the possible exposure of the operator to the pesticide during removal of an empty container and replacing with a full container. In addition, the operator must correctly identify the product concentrate and program the delivery system accordingly, introducing possible additional operator error. See also, U.S. Pat. App. 2004/0035949 of Elkins and Tucker (abandoned) wherein they attempted to maintain insecticide agitation by a similar recirculation loop.
It is clear from the preceding discussion that the haphazard applications of pesticides in the past have caused safety and health concerns, not just for the operators or technicians, but also for homeowners, nearby inhabitants, and animals. A combination of these concerns, along with the economic cost of pest eradication to homeowners, businesses and government, has prompted continual innovation in delivery systems. With greater ability to control pesticide delivery, and the reduced size of water irrigation systems, pesticide application systems for homes and businesses have been similarly adapted to smaller diameter conduit installations. These installations are generally loops of conduit placed at the building eve, near-ground level or possibly around a pool or along a fence of an inhabited area. The pesticide reservoir and pump delivery system must be connected nearby to a water and electricity supply. Some designs require a large barrel as a reservoir for diluted pesticide. The homeowner or technician buys a concentrate, pours it in the barrel, and adds water to a predetermined level. These barrels are unsightly and are thus relegated to spaces near the air conditioner or the pool mechanicals. Nevertheless, homeowners have these systems installed around patio, lawn, pool, and garden areas. Commercial businesses have these systems installed in and around buildings and outside work areas. Control of spray types, times, and volumes is no longer the function of an individual but rather a programmed control system, the location of spray heads, and the pre-packaged pesticide formulation.
Heretofore, safety concerns have been directed primarily at instituting a high degree of control of the volume, timing and direction of the spray. The chemical composition of the spray has been a secondary consideration. Organic based liquid pesticides, such as DDT, have been replaced by lesser toxic compositions, and even ‘environmentally friendly’ compositions comprised of ‘natural’ pesticides such as pyrethrins or bacteria. However, these ‘friendly’ compositions still must be sold to the household consumer or commercial service in liquid or powdered concentrates to minimize shipping cost and still maintain effectiveness. If not as lethally toxic in these concentrations as their predecessors, the homeowner or technician must still exercise caution from direct contact with these concentrates as they may present a danger to contact or ingestion. Additionally, as noted above most of the spraying apparatus utilizes a large container or drum to hold the diluted pesticide mixture or solution prior to spraying. This configuration requires that the homeowner or technician open a container of concentrate, pour the concentrate in the barrel, and then discard the empty concentrate container. Even those systems that do not require a dilution container, such as '641, and possibly '161, above, still require that an individual correctly identify the pesticide, open the containers of pesticide concentrate and fit them to the apparatus or mix them into a larger container, and then reprogram the spray system.
Thus, there is a need for an insecticide, pesticide, and insect repellent distribution apparatus that minimizes operator contact with the pesticide, when the pesticide is added to the apparatus. There is a further need for the distribution apparatus to have the capability to identify the pesticide in the container. There is a further safety need for the system to prevent the connection of an improper container. There is a further need that once the system recognizes the contents of the container, the system utilizes on-board programming to make any adjustments for optimum flow control, dilutions, and spraying without the need for operator programming. In addition, there is a need for the distribution system to be able to write information to the container, such as the volume of fluid remaining, if the container is removed before it is empty. With the utilization of a ‘smart’ pesticide container or cartridge, the interaction of the homeowner or the technician with the distribution system may be reduced to replacing bottles of concentrate on a periodic basis.
In the present invention, coupling of the container of pesticide, identification of the container contents, and flow control may be accomplished by utilization of a connector apparatus such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,897,374 (2005) to Garber et al., wherein the first coupler portion is fixedly mounted on the distribution apparatus and the second coupler portion is fixedly attached to the pesticide concentrate container or cartridge from the manufacturer. The first coupler contains a wireless transmitter and interrogator, such as an RFID reader, and the second coupler on the container contains a wireless transmitter and ‘smart’ RFID tag, preprogrammed to identify the contents of the container and capable of receiving data. Once the first and second couplers communicate, the system identifies the contents of the pesticide container and adjusts any flow or spray parameters accordingly without operator input. If the cartridge is removed before it is empty, the system writes relevant data to the ‘smart’ RFID tag in the second connector, enabling the cartridge to be reconnected as required. In addition, the proprietary configuration of the first coupling will thereby prevent anything but a matching second connector from coupling, increasing safety by removing the possibility of incorrect or dangerous liquids being introduced to the system and sprayed in the inhabited area. Furthermore, even if a non-family second connector were successfully mated, the wireless transmitter, or RFID tag, must be present in the second connector and correctly identify a product programmed into the RFID reader for flow into the system to occur. Finally, the combination of the flow control and coupling configuration dramatically reduce or eliminate the possibility of contact with the pesticide concentrate. As a result, operator and system safety are greatly enhanced. Secondarily, since the pesticide is automatically identified by the distribution system without operator input, the system outputs the correct preprogrammed spray amounts and times, thereby increasing the safety of nearby inhabitants, vulnerable vegetation and animals.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,085,805 (2000) to Bates discloses a fleet fuel dispensing system comprising, for example, a truck with an RFID tag in the windshield, a proximity indicator, an interrogator in the pump housing to identify the truck. The interrogator then tells the controller to allow fuel to flow. However, the configuration of the present invention does not utilize a proximity indicator and the RFID tag and interrogator are designed only to communicate in a pre-connected or connected state.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0051368 from Caputo discloses a system and method of programming and controlling pumping of medical fluids utilizing an RFID tag on the fluid container and the RFID interrogator interfaced with a pump. The RFID tag may be programmed to contain patient and medication data that when brought in close proximity to the interrogator controls pump functions. Thus, positive patent identification and fluid infusion rate may be preprogrammed into the RFID tag greatly reducing operator input and error.
Thus, there exists a need for an insect control system that minimizes operator exposure and input, controls pump delivery and flow, and maximizes insecticide, pesticide, or repellent utilization.